Furniture & Piano Moving, Furniture Store Drivers, Helpers & Warehousemen & Packers, Local No 82

794 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Furniture & Piano Moving, Furniture Store Drivers, Helpers & Warehousemen & Packers, Local No 82, affiliated with International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO and Cham- pion Exposition Services, Inc and General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Help- ers of Brockton and Vicinity, Local Union No 653, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO Case 1-CD- 828 January 31, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE OF HEARING BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was filed February 11, 1988, by the Employer, alleging that the Respondent, Teamsters Local 82, violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act by engaging in proscribed activity with an object of forcing the Employer to assign certain work to employees it represents rather than to em- ployees represented by Teamsters Local 653 The hearing was held June 13, 14, 17, 22, 24, and 27, 1988, before Hearing Officer John Welsh The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel The Board affirms the hearing officer's rulings, finding them free from prejudicial error On the entire record, the Board makes the following find- ings I JURISDICTION The Employer, a Massachusetts corporation, is engaged in the installation, dismantling, and deco ration of exhibit work, trade shows, conventions, meetings, expositions, and like activities Annually, it purchases and receives in Massachusetts goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the Commonwealth of Massa- chusetts The Employer also annually performs services, valued in excess of $50,000, in States other than the Commonwealth of Massachusetts The parties stipulate, and we find, that the Em- ployer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that Team- sters Local 82 and Teamsters Local 653 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act II THE DISPUTE A Background and Facts of Dispute In autumn 1986, shortly after its formation as an exhibition company, the Employer recognized Teamsters Local 653 as the bargaining representa tive of all its employees performing exhibition work, including the drayage, setup, breakdown, and decorating work associated with trade shows and conventions On November 1, 1986, the Em- ployer executed a 3-year contract with Teamsters Local 653 Since the John P Hynes Veterans Me morial Convention Center (Hynes Center) in Boston, Massachusetts, reopened in January 1987 after extensive renovations, the Employer has as signed exhibition work at that facility to its Team- sters Local 653-represented employees Teamsters Local 82 represents the employees of the Employer's two principal competitors in the Boston area, which have exclusive contracts for ex- hibition work at the other two major facilities in Boston, and also perform work at other locations in the Boston area, including the Hynes Center In late 1987, John Perry, who was then president of Teamsters Local 82, telephoned one of the Em- ployer's customers, Crimson Tech, a computer graphics company located in Cambridge, Massa- chusetts, that planned a May 1988 trade show at the Hynes Center According to the direct testimo ny of a manager of Crimson Tech, Perry stated in the telephone conversation that Teamsters Local 82 had jurisdiction over the Hynes Center, so if Crimson Tech contracted for exhibition services there, it had to use a Teamsters Local 82-affiliated company When informed that Crimson Tech planned to use the Employer's services, Perry stated that the Employer was not part of Team stern Local 82," and that there would be an un specified "problem" if Crimson Tech did use the Employer because it was not a Teamsters Local 82-affiliated company On cross-examination, how ever, the witness agreed with counsel for Team sters Local 82 that Perry had referred to "a juris- dictional problem" that would arise if Champion used Teamsters Local 653 employees at the Hynes Center Finally, when questioned further by the hearing officer, the witness emphasized that "[Perry] didn't say [the problems] would be juris dictional problems He said there would be prob- lems " Teamsters Local 82 made no further contact with Crimson Tech and, although Crimson Tech did use Champion for Crimson Tech's May 1988 trade show at the Hynes Center, Teamsters Local 82 did not picket or engage in any other activity associated with that show 292 NLRB No 83 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 82 (CHAMPION EXPOSITION) By letter dated January 22, 1988, Teamsters Local 82 requested a hearing before the executive board of Teamsters Joint Council No 10 to resolve a jurisdictional question between it and Teamsters Local 653 concerning the work performed at the Hynes Center On June 10, 1988, the Joint Council determined that Teamsters Local 82 had jurisdic- tion over the exhibition work performed at the Hynes Center While the dispute was pending before the Joint Council, the Employer invoked ar- bitration on whether the Employer was bound by a Joint Council decision regarding work performed at the Hynes Center On April 11, 1988, the arbi trator rendered his determination that the collec- tive-bargaining agreement between the Employer and Teamsters Local 653 did not obligate the Em- ployer to comply with such a decision B Work in Dispute The disputed work as stipulated by the parties involves the drayage, setup, breakdown, and deco- rating work done by the Employer at trade shows and conventions at the John P Hynes Veterans Memorial Convention Center in Boston, Massachu- setts C Contentions of the Parties Teamsters Local 82 contends that there is no reasonable cause to believe that the telephone con- versation with Crimson Tech involved a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act Teamsters Local 82 also argues that the decision of the Joint Coun cil that exhibition work at the Hynes Center falls within the jurisdiction of Teamsters Local 82 is binding on all parties For these reasons, Teamsters Local 82 contends that the present dispute is not properly before the Board In the alternative, Teamsters Local 82 argues that the work in dispute should be awarded to employees represented by it because the disputed work falls within its jurisdic- tion as defined in its charter, and further that the factors of relative skills and safety considerations as well as area and industry practice favor such an award Finally, Teamsters Local 82 asserts that the Employer's claimed preference for employees rep- resented by Teamsters Local 653 is not based on relative skills or efficiency of operations, but rather on an arrangement with Teamsters Local 653 per- mitting lower wages and lax contract performance The Employer contends that there is reasonable cause to find that Teamsters Local 82 threatened Crimson Tech in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, and also disputes that the Joint Council decision constitutes a voluntary method of adjust- ment binding on the Employer, citing the arbitra- tor's decision in support of its contrary position 795 Moreover, the Employer contends that the factors of employer preference, efficiency and economy of operations, and its collective bargaining agreement with Teamsters Local 653 favor an award of the disputed work to employees represented by Team- sters Local 653 Teamsters Local 653 agrees with the position advanced by the Employer D Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed with a determina- tion of the dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied there is reasonable cause to believe Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been vio- lated The Employer contends that Teamsters Local 82 violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) by its state ment to Crimson Tech indicating that there would be "a problem" if the latter used the Employer to perform exhibition work at the Hynes Center be- cause its employees were not represented by Team- sters Local 82 Teamsters Local 82, however, argues in its brief that the statement did not consti- tute a threat, but merely informed Crimson Tech that the use of Teamsters Local 653 represented employees would result in jurisdictional problems between the two locals The only evidence present ed by the Employer in support of its contention that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated is the tes- timony by the manager of Crimson Tech who was contacted by Teamsters Local 82 The witness pro vided an ambiguous account of her telephone con versation with Teamsters Local 82 representative Perry, testifying initially that Perry had indicated there would be 'a problem" if she used the Em- ployer because its employees were not represented by Teamsters Local 82, later agreeing that Perry had cited "jurisdictional problems," and ultimately reaffirming her initial testimony The witness fur- ther testified that she interpreted Perry s remarks to mean that Crimson Tech "wouldn't be able to have the show or whatever " The witness' subjec- tive interpretation, however, does not determine whether Perry's statement constituted a threat of prohibited activity Rather, the critical consider- ations are the specific language used and surround- ing conduct and events See generally Carpenters District Council (Apollo Dry Wall), 211 NLRB 291 fn 1 (1974) In this case Perry' s alleged statement, under each of the versions testified to by the man- ager, did not explicitly refer to any specific con- duct by the local Moreover, there was thereafter no strike, picketing, or other action taken by Team- sters Local 82 that would reasonably lend meaning to the alleged "threat " In these circumstances, we find the testimony too vague and insubstantial to establish reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been 796 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD violated 1 Accordingly, we shall quash the notice ORDER o° hearing 2 The notice of hearing is quashed See generally Operating Engineers Local 106 (E C Ernst) 137 NLR B 1746 1749-1752 (1962) (absent further evidence ambiguous phrase try it and see does not establish reasonable cause) cf Laborers Local 1191 2 In view of our finding that there is no reasonable cause to believe (Morrison Co) 209 NLRB 310 (1974) (promise of trouble coupled with that Sec 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated we find it unnecessary to pass on union s causing cessation of same work on another job sufficient basis for the further contention by Teamsters Local 82 that an agreed on method finding reasonable cause) exists for the voluntary adjustment of this dispute